![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> Does that mean that we might not have some cases where we'd need to > make > sure we do things differently? Of course not. Something migt show up. Might, and has. For a good time, take journal_info out of per_call_chain() in the patch set and watch it helpfully and loudly wet itself. There really really are bits of thread_struct which are strictly thread-local-storage, of a sort, for a kernel call path. Sharing them, even only through cooperate scheduling, is fatal. link_count is another obvious one. They're also the only ones I've bothered to discover so far :). > But > this actually makes it very clear what the difference between "struct > thread_struct" and "struct task_struct" are. One is shared between > fibrils, the other isn't. Indeed. Right now the per-fibril uses of task_struct members are left inline in task_struct and are copied on fibril switches. We *could* put them in thread_info, at the cost of stack pressure, or hang them off task_struct in their own struct to avoid the copies, at the cost of indirection. I didn't like imposing a cost on paths that don't use fibrils, though, so I left them inline. (I think you know all this. I'm clarifying for the peanut gallery, I hope.) - z - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-01-31 18:51 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||